Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

Macy0161 · 23-10-2018 02:15PM

meeeeh wrote: »

But if you think your reflective straps will do anything in fog you are very naive.

I'll put on my lights, pretty much the same as I'd do if I was in the car! ffs.

buffalo · 23-10-2018 03:38PM

meeeeh wrote: »

It's that what it is. People not wanting to lower themselves to the level of construction or other manual workers.

It's not a lowering. Constructions workers wear hi-viz on sites where there are people working in JCBs, driving forklifts, teleporters, dump trucks - it's a hazardous environment by design, as those vehicles are necessary for the work involved, and hi-viz is used to lower the risk of crushing, etc.

For the RSA to encourage hi-viz gear for pedestrians is to say "there's not much we can do to lower the level of risk from distracted or speeding drivers except dress you in shiny outfits. Good luck out there!" It's an acceptance that a culture of entitled driving is more important than the safety of those who choose to walk or jog in public areas.

07Lapierre · 23-10-2018 03:40PM

buffalo wrote: »

It's not a lowering. Constructions workers wear hi-viz on sites where there are people working in JCBs, driving forklifts, teleporters, dump trucks - it's a hazardous environment by design, as those vehicles are necessary for the work involved, and hi-viz is used to lower the risk of crushing, etc.

For the RSA to encourage hi-viz gear for pedestrians is to say "there's not much we can do to lower the level of risk from distracted or speeding drivers except dress you in shiny outfits. Good luck out there!" It's an acceptance that a culture of entitled driving is more important than the safety of those who choose to walk or jog in public areas.

Any Construction workers I know place more safety importance on their hard hats and Steel toed Boots!

buffalo · 23-10-2018 03:41PM

07Lapierre wrote: »

Any Construction workers I know place more safety importance on their hard hats and Steel toed Boots!

I can already imagine the next RSA ad...

Ray Bloody Purchase · 23-10-2018 03:43PM

buffalo wrote: »

I can already imagine the next RSA ad...

Every morning I pass a guy cycling with a pair of rigger boots on.

Did i miss the memo?

Chips Lovell · 23-10-2018 03:44PM

Ray Bloody Purchase wrote: »

Every morning I pass a guy cycling with a pair of rigger boots on.

If it saves one life....

Mc Love · 23-10-2018 04:20PM

You see some people wearing pink "hi viz" tops but as has been said here, its the reflective bits that show up in the dark. Find it odd that more of the gilets, jackets dont have more reflective material on them.

23-10-2018 04:39PM

In Copenhagen for the weekend, thousands and thousands of people cycling, didn't see one cyclist wearing a high-viz, and very few helmets.

Chips Lovell · 23-10-2018 04:51PM

Deleted User wrote: »

In Copenhagen for the weekend, thousands and thousands of people cycling, didn't see one cyclist wearing a high-viz, and very few helmets.

Shocking Joe.

Seriously though, that's because in a lot of other countries, cycling is seen as about as normal an activity as walking or driving. Here it's all too often cast as some sort of high risk activity. That impression is bolstered by constant scaremongering from the likes of the road safety authority.

07Lapierre · 23-10-2018 04:52PM

Deleted User wrote: »

In Copenhagen for the weekend, thousands and thousands of people cycling, didn't see one cyclist wearing a high-viz, and very few helmets.

I think you answered your own question. If we had more people cycling (and better cycling infrastructure), cycling would be safer for everyone.

https://www.visitcopenhagen.com/sites/default/files/asp/visitcopenhagen/Visit-sites/1024x576/Bikes/cykler_kasper_thyge.jpg

RobbieMD · 23-10-2018 05:33PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you have hi-vis stripes on your car? They would definitely make your car more visible, especially for when you forget your lights, or for when you drive with no back lights because you don't know how your DRLs work, or when you are seen from the side.

A cyclist is a lot smaller than a car though.

AndrewJRenko · 23-10-2018 05:36PM

RobbieMD wrote: »

A cyclist is a lot smaller than a car though.

True, and the cyclist is generally lighter and slower too - so all the more important for cars to be visible at all times.

tomasrojo · 23-10-2018 08:14PM

meeeeh wrote: »

It's that what it is. People not wanting to lower themselves to the level of construction or other manual workers.

I don't want to dress like a ballerina either. It's not because I regard ballet as a low-status activity.

tomasrojo · 24-10-2018 02:50AM

Esprit d'escalier: Rather than ballerina, I should have said cowboy, sailor, native American or leatherman.

Ray Bloody Purchase · 24-10-2018 07:25AM

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/dublin-bus-driver-denies-dangerous-driving-causing-death-of-a-cyclist-37452813.html

This gives an interesting insight into the view the judiciary have of hi-vis etc.

magicbastarder · 24-10-2018 08:30AM

tomasrojo wrote: »

Esprit d'escalier: Rather than ballerina, I should have said cowboy, sailor, native American or leatherman.

that's exclusionary towards cops and construction workers.

Macy0161 · 24-10-2018 08:41AM

just for the record, I've no problem with appropriate PPE, in the appropriate setting. Builders vest for when I'm on a building site (or marshaling, as it's the rules), as well as hard hat and safety shoes, which I'd put more important on a site. I don't deem a builders vest as appropriate on the bike - limited value (the yellow material zero good in the dark, and positions of the reflective detail in an urban setting are not ideal), flappy, and potentially questionable reflective detail if got from the RSA/ cheapo sources.

If I'm going to wear something to enhance my visibility, it is something designed for the activity I'm doing - so I have a reflective Gillet, reflective rain jacket. But even most of my commuting gear from Ali has some reflective detail (all my "decent" gear does). But they're not as important as lights*.

*and I'm going to highlight, again, the lack of a clear standard for lights in this state. Something the RSA could be doing for cyclists.

BrianHenryIE · 24-10-2018 08:56AM

greenspurs wrote: »

Why cant people on here admit that, instead of digging their heels in, just to create/fight an arguement!

People can't admit it because in countries where cycling is safer, hi-viz isn't the factor that makes things safer.

We are literally begging for safer cycling. If you can clearly demonstrate the advantages of hi-viz, then it will sell itself.

magicbastarder · 24-10-2018 09:01AM

i can't remember who it was, but someone here explained the official hierarchy of risk reduction a couple of years back (probably earlier in this thread).
IIRC (and unsurprisingly), making those who face the risk take actions to protect themselves is well down the list. the primary actions are on those who *create* the risk.

i'm 100% sure the RSA are hammering on the door of the gardai pleading with them to ramp up their actions against bad driving. 100%. because it'd be absurd if they weren't.

Ray Bloody Purchase · 24-10-2018 09:19AM

magicbastarder wrote: »

i can't remember who it was, but someone here explained the official hierarchy of risk reduction a couple of years back (probably earlier in this thread).
IIRC (and unsurprisingly), making those who face the risk take actions to protect themselves is well down the list. the primary actions are on those who *create* the risk.

i'm 100% sure the RSA are hammering on the door of the gardai pleading with them to ramp up their actions against bad driving. 100%. because it'd be absurd if they weren't.

It's called the hierarchy of controls. PPE is the last mitigation you put in place. At the top is eliminate and after that I think it's isolate the hazard.

Macy0161 · 24-10-2018 09:22AM

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm 100% sure the RSA are hammering on the door of the gardai pleading with them to ramp up their actions against bad driving. 100%. because it'd be absurd if they weren't.

Yep, we can see this with all the pressure they're putting on for more cameras/ ANPR, in more locations...

Grassey · 24-10-2018 09:44AM

Ray Bloody Purchase wrote: »

It's called the hierarchy of controls. PPE is the last mitigation you put in place. At the top is eliminate and after that I think it's isolate the hazard.

I doubt elimination of cars is practical, so I'll settle for substitution with public transport & bikes :P

Duckjob · 24-10-2018 10:03AM

The whole question of the effectiveness of hi-viz is a BS red herring.

The bigger question we need to be discussing is, what kind of society do we want to move towards. Do we want a society :

a) where the whole public space of the society is essentially like a big high-danger site where anyone not encased in at least 2 tonnes of metal is compelled to walk around like a builder in the hope that they don't get hit by heavy fast moving traffic

or

b) where we hold people in the charge of dangerous vehicles to strict account for their actions and in doing so compel them to slow down and prioritise their great duty of care to those around them, particularly where they are sharing restricted space with unprotected road users like pedestrians and cyclists.

What frustrates me most about the constant opposition to a culture change away from a car-dominant society is that we don't have to make a leap of faith that such a change will work. We can look across the water to NL and see healthy people, clear, quiet air, clean beautiful city spaces AND thriving city centre business.

All these benefits are proven to follow if we just make that switch in our mindsets. Yet in the best traditions of our wonderful little country, too many people dig their heels in the mud and resist changing from their miserable car-clogged status quo. The attempt to compel people to don hi-viz is symptomatic of that closed mindset.

kirving · 24-10-2018 12:04PM

07Lapierre wrote: »

Fog? Again LIGHTS are the best option.

In all cases, every time? Light can be obscured by bags, jackets, dirt, and most have limited projection angles.

I would agree that, lights are the best option in the majority of circumstances, but retro-reflective material supplements a set of lights extremely well. Finally, bright clothing is far easier to see than dark clothing in the majority of circumstances. I don't see how there's any argument about that.

There's a reason on-patrol Gardai wear bright colors, and armed Gardai wear dark colours. In an urban environment, warning signs are yellow,white and red, road markings are white/yellow instead of blue.

CramCycle · 24-10-2018 12:17PM

Kevin Irving wrote: »

In all cases, every time? Light can be obscured by bags, jackets, dirt, and most have limited projection angles.

But most project. Using examples of where people use them incorrectly is just strawmanning. The number of cyclists who wear their Hi Vis jacket under their backpack or is covered in dirt, grime etc. It is the same thing. It also relies on other light sources, so unless the right situations are in play, it is effectively no different than wearing a random t shirt.

A properly fitted, decent light, in all circumstances will be better than a hi Vis jacket. I think someone here even put pictures up of themselves with and without their bike lights and then also used cars with no lights, dims and high beams to illustrate the point. In Ireland we have a high level of roadside greenery, which, during daylight hours, blends in with Hi vis.

I have nothing against Hi Vis, use it if you want too but don't go around thinking your visible enough if your just wearing Hi Vis. Consider the number of drivers who drive around with DRLs, instead of dims, which are not shining the light high enough for a Hi Vis vest to work anyway. Council workers trousers are the best form of Hi Vis clothing. They catch low lights, add movement that the brain can interpret as human motion, and push comes to shove, the only way a Hi vis jacket is useful in most cycling circumstances is if it has been tailored to fit around your lower legs like ankle warmers.

I would agree that, lights are the best option in the majority of circumstances, but retro-reflective material supplements a set of lights extremely well. Finally, bright clothing is far easier to see than dark clothing in the majority of circumstances. I don't see how there's any argument about that.

Again, look at the RSA ad, the granddad is more visible because of his black jacket, circumstance and situation are key.

There's a reason on-patrol Gardai wear bright colors, and armed Gardai wear dark colours. In an urban environment, warning signs are yellow,white and red, road markings are white/yellow instead of blue.

On patrol Gardai wear a uniform that is easily identifiable, it is sometimes Hi Vis yellow, it is sometimes dark Blue. Armed gardai typically wear what is most suited to the situation, depending on whether they are Detectives, ARU etc.

I say this in full acceptance of my view that if road users paid attention and drove to the conditions, most PPE and lights for cyclists would be unnecessary but as we all know, this is an unrealistic dream and I am not enough of an idiot to actually say that. People make mistakes and lose concentration, thats why I have great lights.

magicbastarder · 24-10-2018 12:55PM

Kevin Irving wrote: »

In all cases, every time? Light can be obscured by bags, jackets, dirt, and most have limited projection angles.

surely a hi-vis jacket is far more likely to be obscured by a bag or jacket?

as Cram mentioned above, the human eye is far more attuned to detecting biomechanical motion, so will more readily detect reflective flashing on your legs/feet as you pedal. plus, it has the benefit of being more likely to be caught by dipped beams.

i have a very sexy pair of fluorescent yellow leg warmers. as i found the few times i've used them, they make you visible to motorists in situations that you're already visible.

07Lapierre · 24-10-2018 12:58PM

Kevin Irving wrote: »

In all cases, every time? Light can be obscured by bags, jackets, dirt, and most have limited projection angles.

I would agree that, lights are the best option in the majority of circumstances, but retro-reflective material supplements a set of lights extremely well. Finally, bright clothing is far easier to see than dark clothing in the majority of circumstances. I don't see how there's any argument about that.

There's a reason on-patrol Gardai wear bright colors, and armed Gardai wear dark colours. In an urban environment, warning signs are yellow,white and red, road markings are white/yellow instead of blue.

Lights are the best option in all circumstances. By lights I mean good lights that are fitted correctly. A bright light covered by a backpack is useless so I would not consider that to be a good light.

IMO all lights shoul be on the bike itself. Rear light should be under the saddle or if the bike has a rack fitted, the rear light should be fitted to the rack or on the rear mudguard.

All front lights should be fitted no higher that the handlebars. Front lights should be angled down slightly.

24-10-2018 01:09PM

CramCycle wrote: »

................. I think someone here even put pictures up of themselves with and without their bike lights and then also used cars with no lights, dims and high beams to illustrate the point. In Ireland we have a high level of roadside greenery, which, during daylight hours, blends in with Hi vis.

I recall those posts, wasn't able to find them though. They really did give a good indication of the effectiveness of hi vis or lack of. If I recall one was a hi vis vest on a clothes line and the other was of a car waiting to turn right on a dark road with a cyclist approaching from their right.

Must have another search later. Maybe they were in a different thread.

Ryath · 24-10-2018 01:16PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

i have a very sexy pair of fluorescent yellow leg warmers. as i found the few times i've used them, they make you visible to motorists in situations that you're already visible.

And don't you look fabulous not sure the leg warmers are what they notice first though. :P

07Lapierre wrote: »

Lights are the best option in all circumstances. By lights I mean good lights that are fitted correctly. A bright light covered by a backpack is useless so I would not consider that to be a good light.

IMO all lights shoul be on the bike itself. Rear light should be under the saddle or if the bike has a rack fitted, the rear light should be fitted to the rack or on the rear mudguard.

All front lights should be fitted no higher that the handlebars. Front lights should be angled down slightly.

Agree there is no no substitute for proper lights on the bike. Still think it's can be good to have a small rear light on the helmet though. If you fell off and are separated from the bike I'd certainly prefer to have it.

Have had club mate comment on my lack of hi viz. I usually use my bike with dynamo lights supplemented with a pair of back up lezynes. I'm not being missed on the bike even if I dressed in black with not a stitch of reflective material.

07Lapierre · 24-10-2018 01:18PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I recall those posts, wasn't able to find them though. They really did give a good indication of the effectiveness of hi vis or lack of. If I recall one was a hi vis vest on a clothes line and the other was of a car waiting to turn right on a dark road with a cyclist approaching from their right.

Must have another search later. Maybe they were in a different thread.

There is a cyclist cycling towards my car is this video. He was wearing a hi viz jacket (no front light) can you spot him?

https://youtu.be/Kamklf8doLc

Hi vis discussion thread (read post #1)

Comments